Dataset Information

A scoping review of de-implementation frameworks and models.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Reduction or elimination of inappropriate, ineffective, or potentially harmful healthcare services and public health programs can help to ensure limited resources are used effectively. Frameworks and models (FM) are valuable tools in conceptualizing and guiding the study of de-implementation. This scoping review sought to identify and characterize FM that can be used to study de-implementation as a phenomenon and identify gaps in the literature to inform future model development and application for research.

Methods

We searched nine databases and eleven journals from a broad array of disciplines (e.g., healthcare, public health, public policy) for de-implementation studies published between 1990 and June 2020. Two raters independently screened titles and abstracts, and then a pair of raters screened all full text records. We extracted information related to setting, discipline, study design, methodology, and FM characteristics from included studies.

Results

The final search yielded 1860 records, from which we screened 126 full text records. We extracted data from 27 articles containing 27 unique FM. Most FM (n = 21) were applicable to two or more levels of the Socio-Ecological Framework, and most commonly assessed constructs were at the organization level (n = 18). Most FM (n = 18) depicted a linear relationship between constructs, few depicted a more complex structure, such as a nested or cyclical relationship. Thirteen studies applied FM in empirical investigations of de-implementation, while 14 articles were commentary or review papers that included FM.

Conclusion

De-implementation is a process studied in a broad array of disciplines, yet implementation science has thus far been limited in the integration of learnings from other fields. This review offers an overview of visual representations of FM that implementation researchers and practitioners can use to inform their work. Additional work is needed to test and refine existing FM and to determine the extent to which FM developed in one setting or for a particular topic can be applied to other contexts. Given the extensive availability of FM in implementation science, we suggest researchers build from existing FM rather than recreating novel FM.

Registration

Not registered.

SUBMITTER: Walsh-Bailey C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8611904 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundApplication of knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) is one method for successfully incorporating evidence into clinical care. However, there are multiple KT TMFs and little guidance on which to select. This study sought to identify and describe available full-spectrum KT TMFs to subsequently guide users.MethodsA scoping review was completed. Articles were identified through searches within electronic databases, previous reviews, grey literature, and consultation with KT experts. Search terms included combinations of KT terms and theory-related terms. Included citations had to describe full-spectrum KT TMFs that had been applied or tested. Titles/abstracts and full-text articles were screened independently by two investigators. Each KT TMF was described by its characteristics including name, context, key components, how it was used, primary target audience, levels of use, and study outcomes. Each KT TMF was also categorized into theoretical approaches as process models, determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories, and evaluation frameworks. Within each category, KT TMFs were compared and contrasted to identify similarities and unique characteristics.ResultsElectronic searches yielded 7160 citations. Additional citations were identified from previous reviews (n = 41) and bibliographies of included full-text articles (n = 6). Thirty-six citations describing 36 full-spectrum were identified. In 24 KT TMFs, the primary target audience was multi-level including patients/public, professionals, organizational, and financial/regulatory. The majority of the KT TMFs were used within public health, followed by research (organizational, translation, health), or in multiple contexts. Twenty-six could be used at the individual, organization, or policy levels, five at the individual/organization levels, three at the individual level only, and two at the organizational/policy level. Categorization of the KT TMFs resulted in 18 process models, eight classic theories, three determinant frameworks, three evaluation frameworks, and four that fit more than one category. There were no KT TMFs that fit the implementation theory category. Within each category, similarities and unique characteristics emerged through comparison.ConclusionsA systematic compilation of existing full-spectrum KT TMFs, categorization into different approaches, and comparison has been provided in a user-friendly way. This list provides options for users to select from when designing KT projects and interventions.Trial registrationA protocol outlining the methodology of this scoping review was developed and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018088564).

Project description:BACKGROUND:The relevance of context in implementation science is reflected in the numerous theories, frameworks, models and taxonomies that have been proposed to analyse determinants of implementation (in this paper referred to as determinant frameworks). This scoping review aimed to investigate and map how determinant frameworks used in implementation science were developed, what terms are used for contextual determinants for implementation, how the context is conceptualized, and which context dimensions that can be discerned. METHODS:A scoping review was conducted. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from inception to October 2017, and supplemented with implementation science text books and known published overviews. Publications in English that described a determinant framework (theory, model, taxonomy or checklist), of which context was one determinant, were eligible. Screening and inclusion were done in duplicate. Extracted data were analysed to address the study aims. A qualitative content analysis with an inductive approach was carried out concerning the development and core context dimensions of the frameworks. The review is reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS:The database searches yielded a total of 1113 publications, of which 67 were considered potentially relevant based on the predetermined eligibility criteria, and retrieved in full text. Seventeen unique determinant frameworks were identified and included. Most were developed based on the literature and/or the developers' implementation experiences. Six of the frameworks explicitly referred to "context", but only four frameworks provided a specific definition of the concept. Instead, context was defined indirectly by description of various categories and sub-categories that together made up the context. Twelve context dimensions were identified, pertaining to different aggregation levels. The most widely addressed context dimensions were organizational support, financial resources, social relations and support, and leadership. CONCLUSIONS:The findings suggest variation with regard to how the frameworks were developed and considerable inconsistency in terms used for contextual determinants, how context is conceptualized, and which contextual determinants are accounted for in frameworks used in implementation science. Common context dimensions were identified, which can facilitate research that incorporates a theory of context, i.e. assumptions about how different dimensions may influence each other and affect implementation outcomes. A thoughtful application of the concept and a more consistent terminology would enhance transparency, simplify communication among researchers, and facilitate comparison across studies.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic prospective surveillance models (ePSMs) for cancer rehabilitation include routine monitoring of the development of treatment toxicities and impairments via electronic patient-reported outcomes. Implementing ePSMs to address the knowledge-to-practice gap between the high incidence of impairments and low uptake of rehabilitation services is a top priority in cancer care.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review to understand the state of the evidence concerning the implementation of ePSMs in oncology. Seven electronic databases were searched from inception to February 2021. All articles were screened and extracted by two independent reviewers. Data regarding the implementation strategies, outcomes, and determinants were extracted. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy and the implementation outcomes taxonomy guided the synthesis of the implementation strategies and outcomes, respectively. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided the synthesis of determinants based on five domains (intervention characteristics, individual characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, and process).ResultsOf the 5122 records identified, 46 interventions met inclusion criteria. The common implementation strategies employed were "conduct educational meetings," "distribute educational materials," "change record systems," and "intervene with patients to enhance uptake and adherence." Feasibility and acceptability were the prominent outcomes used to assess implementation. The complexity, relative advantage, design quality, and packaging were major implementation determinants at the intervention level. Knowledge was key at the individual level. At the inner setting level, major determinants were the implementation climate and readiness for implementation. At the outer setting level, meeting the needs of patients was the primary determinant. Engaging various stakeholders was key at the process level.ConclusionsThis review provides a comprehensive summary of what is known concerning the implementation of ePSMs. The results can inform future implementation and evaluation of ePSMs, including planning for key determinants, selecting implementation strategies, and considering outcomes alongside local contextual factors to guide the implementation process.

Project description:BackgroundRural healthcare has unique characteristics that affect the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based interventions. Numerous theories, models, and frameworks have been developed to guide implementation of healthcare interventions, though not specific to rural healthcare. The present scoping review sought to identify the theories, models, and frameworks most frequently applied to rural health and propose an approach to rural health research that harnesses selected constructs from these theories, models, and frameworks. This resulting synthesis can serve as a guide to researchers, policy makers, and clinicians seeking to employ commonly used theories, models, and frameworks to rural health.MethodsWe used the Scopus abstract indexing service to identify peer-reviewed literature citing one or more of theories, models, or frameworks used in dissemination and implementation research and including the word "rural" in the Title, Abstract, or Keywords. We screened the remaining titles and abstracts to ensure articles met additional inclusion criteria. We conducted a full review of the resulting 172 articles to ensure they identified one or more discrete theory, model, or framework applied to research or quality improvement projects. We extracted the theories, models, and frameworks and categorized these as process models, determinant frameworks, classic theories, or evaluation frameworks.ResultsWe retained 61 articles of which 28 used RE-AIM, 11 used Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) framework, eight used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and six used the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (iPARIHS). Additional theories, models, and frameworks were cited in three or fewer reports in the literature. The 14 theories, models, and frameworks cited in the literature were categorized as seven process models, four determinant frameworks, one evaluation framework, and one classic theory.ConclusionsThe RE-AIM framework was the most frequently cited framework in the rural health literature, followed by CBPR, CFIR, and iPARIHS. A notable advantage of RE-AIM in rural healthcare settings is the focus on reach as a specified outcome, given the challenges of engaging a geographically diffuse and often isolated population. We present a rationale for combining the strengths of these theories, models, and frameworks to guide a research agenda specific to rural healthcare research.Systematic review registrationhttps://osf.io/fn2cd/.

Project description:ObjectivesDespite an estimated 300 000 mobile health apps on the market, there remains no consensus around helping patients and clinicians select safe and effective apps. In 2018, our team drew on existing evaluation frameworks to identify salient categories and create a new framework endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). We have since created a more expanded and operational framework Mhealth Index and Navigation Database (MIND) that aligns with the APA categories but includes objective and auditable questions (105). We sought to survey the existing space, conducting a review of all mobile health app evaluation frameworks published since 2018, and demonstrate the comprehensiveness of this new model by comparing it to existing and emerging frameworks.DesignWe conducted a scoping review of mobile health app evaluation frameworks.Data sourcesReferences were identified through searches of PubMed, EMBASE and PsychINFO with publication date between January 2018 and October 2020.Eligibility criteriaPapers were selected for inclusion if they meet the predetermined eligibility criteria-presenting an evaluation framework for mobile health apps with patient, clinician or end user-facing questions.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers screened the literature separately and applied the inclusion criteria. The data extracted from the papers included: author and dates of publication, source affiliation, country of origin, name of framework, study design, description of framework, intended audience/user and framework scoring system. We then compiled a collection of more than 1701 questions across 79 frameworks. We compared and grouped these questions using the MIND framework as a reference. We sought to identify the most common domains of evaluation while assessing the comprehensiveness and flexibility-as well as any potential gaps-of MIND.ResultsNew app evaluation frameworks continue to emerge and expand. Since our 2019 review of the app evaluation framework space, more frameworks include questions around privacy (43) and clinical foundation (57), reflecting an increased focus on issues of app security and evidence base. The majority of mapped frameworks overlapped with at least half of the MIND categories. The results of this search have informed a database (apps.digitalpsych.org) that users can access today.ConclusionAs the number of app evaluation frameworks continues to rise, it is becoming difficult for users to select both an appropriate evaluation tool and to find an appropriate health app. This review provides a comparison of what different app evaluation frameworks are offering, where the field is converging and new priorities for improving clinical guidance.

Project description:BackgroundOsteoporosis affects over half of adults over 50 years worldwide. With an ageing population, osteoporosis, fractures and their associated costs are increasing. Unfortunately, despite effective therapies, many with osteoporosis remain undiagnosed and untreated. Models of care (MoC) to improve outcomes include fracture liaison services, screening, education, and exercise programs, however efficacy for these is mixed. The aim of this study is to summarise MoC in osteoporosis and describe implementation characteristics and evidence for improving outcomes.MethodsThis systematic scoping review identified articles via Ovid Medline and Embase, published in English between 01/01/2009 and 15/06/2021, describing MoC for adults aged ≥18 years with, or at risk of, osteoporosis and / or health professionals caring for this group. All included at least one of clinical, consumer or clinician outcomes, with fractures and bone mineral density (BMD) change the primary clinical outcomes. Exclusion criteria were studies assessing pharmaceuticals or procedures without other interventions, or insufficient operational details. All study designs were included, with no comparator necessary. Title and abstract were reviewed by two reviewers. Full text review and data extraction was performed by these reviewers for 20% of article and, thereafter by a single author. As the review was predominantly descriptive, no comparator statistics were used.Findings314 articles were identified describing 289 MoC with fracture liaison services (n=89) and education programs (n=86) predominating. The population had prior fragility fracture in 77 studies, the median (IQR) patient number was 210 (87, 667) and the median (IQR) follow-up duration for outcome assessment was 12 (6, 12·5) months. Fracture reduction was reported by 65 studies, with 16 (37%) graded as high quality, and 19 / 47 studies with a comparator group found a reduction in fractures. BMD change was reported by 73 studies, with 41 finding improved BMD. Implementation characteristics including reach, fidelity and loss to follow-up were under-reported, and consumer and clinician perspectives rare.InterpretationThis comprehensive review of MoC for osteoporosis demonstrated inconsistent evidence for improving outcomes despite similar types of models. Future studies should include implementation outcomes, consumer and clinician perspectives, and fracture or BMD outcomes with sufficient duration of follow-up. Authors should consider pragmatic trial designs and co-design with clinicians and consumers.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Translating research evidence into practice is challenging and, to date, there are relatively few public health interventions that have been effectively and cost-effectively implemented and delivered at scale. Theories, models and frameworks (herein termed 'frameworks') have been used in implementation science to describe, guide and explain implementation and scale-up. While economic constructs have been reported as both barriers and facilitators to effective implementation and scale-up of public health interventions, there is currently no published review of how economic constructs are considered within commonly used implementation and scale-up frameworks. This paper aimed to narratively review the economic constructs incorporated in commonly used implementation and scale-up frameworks. METHODS:Frameworks for inclusion in the narrative review were identified from the literature and thematic content analysis was undertaken using a recursive deductive approach. Emergent key themes and sub-themes were identified and results were summarised narratively within each theme. RESULTS:Twenty-six framework publications were included in our analysis, with wide variation between frameworks in the scope and level of detail of the economic constructs included. Four key themes emerged from the data - 'resources', 'benefit', 'cost' and 'funding'. Only five frameworks incorporated all four identified key themes. Overarching lenses from which to consider key themes included 'stakeholder perspectives', 'stage in the research translation process' and 'context'. 'Resources' were most frequently considered in relation to the sub-themes of 'types of resources' (e.g. labour, time or infrastructure) and 'availability' of resources, and the opportunity for 'economies of scale'. The 'relative advantage of interventions' emerged as an interconnecting sub-theme between 'cost' and 'benefit'. 'Funding' was most often considered in relation to 'funding sources', 'availability', 'sustainability' or 'contextual impact'. The concept of 'opportunity cost' was considered in relatively few frameworks, despite being fundamental to economic theory. CONCLUSIONS:Implementation and scale-up frameworks provide a conceptual map to inform the effective and cost-effective implementation of public health interventions delivered at scale. Despite evidence of an emerging focus on the economic considerations of implementation and scale-up within some commonly used frameworks, our findings suggest that there is significant scope for further exploration of the economic constructs related to implementation and scale-up.